To ask what one or two policies you think could make the biggest difference to the U.K.?

[whatkatydid2013]

To me the big one is social housing. I feel like if we could build up a large supply of social housing at reasonable rates all over the country the benefits would be massive. It would make life affordable for many more people and lead to them being less likely to need in work benefits. The affordable rents would cover maintenance and could keep large numbers of people in stable employment doing said maintenance (as well as creating administrative roles). It would make it less challenging to staff key worker roles in more expensive areas. In the short term I appreciate it would be a massive expense but it seems like in the long term it would cost less than our current system on a going basis and it would make many people a lot more financially secure. I find it disappointing that all main parties seem so focused on home ownership in their policy statements. I know there are many important policy areas but this just always feels like one that’s very central and totally glossed over by all parties. Maybe because there isn’t a quick, easy fix?

What you suggest has several problems @SensationalSusie

Firstly, if social housing is only for those in dire need it would increase the stigma of it and lead to it being seen as for people with addiction problems, homelessness, just out of prison etc - you'd either get sink estates or very hostile neighbours

The housing would probably also cost more to maintain as tenants would be less likely to take care of it, and tenant turnover would be quicker so less incentive to look after it

Also if someone just about got on their feet after a crisis then the minute they get to a more stable place, they're pushed back into private renting and have to move to a different area, it's fairly likely to cause hardship and many would go back into crisis before too long

What you really want is enough social housing so you can build strong communities where people are proud to live there and take care of each other, feel a bit of pride that encourages them to take up education etc

You make it sound like a probation hostel, basically

@DivingForLove aware that in certain parts of the U.K. there are people with vast amounts of unearned wealth tied up in property - mainly as a symptom of a broken housing market and overinflated house prices, never mind luck. That wealth is not guaranteed and concrete unless you sell it and stick it in a bank.

My point is, if someone has worked, paid their taxes and purchased an asset, it is up to them what they do with that asset without it being up for a further enormous tax grab in the event of their death.

But if it’s an alternative to education or work then it’s aimed at those who would otherwise drop out of society.

I love this idea. You definitely need a carrot to change behaviour on using other forms of transport. Just making it harder/more expensive to drive with no alternative doesn’t help

Central or local government?

Care homes used to be run by councils, who paid staff a fair wage for caring for them and they had decent conditions of service. Not like now, when many homes are now running a 2-shift system so staff have to do 12 hour shifts, get the legal minimum leave, pisspoor pensions and about 20p an hour above NMW.

I would merge adult social care and the NHS.

At present, there's a disincentive for ASC to be prompt in carrying out assessments and making provision for people ready to be discharged from hospital. The minute they're discharged ASC has to meet their needs in terms of care, whether it's provided in the community or in a residential setting. The longer the council can delay assessing their needs and making the necessary provision for discharge from hospital, the less it costs them and the more it costs the NHS.

With some people waiting several weeks before they can be discharged from hospital because of delays in assessment and making provision, the cost to the NHS must be significant and it has a knock-on effect on waiting lists because of bed-blocking.

If it was all under one roof, so to speak, I bet that discharge planning and getting care plans in place would be much quicker.

@shearwater it is not begrudging - they got the same student loans/grants and had a part time job just like everyone else. But their housing was subsidised by the government for no reason for over a decade. And they were essentially given a five figure deposit from the government via right to buy, again for no reason. I do think the system is wrong. A family in need could have been in the house.

average age a woman has a child is already 30.

Many of the people who have children and are struggling already have skills i.e. nurses. The way to earn money nowadays is to work in commercial law, tech, finance or as a doctor. In these industries, you will earn above national average easily as a 25 year old and consider 60k a low wage (I know my DH does despite earning £75k)

With the exception of law and medicine,you don't always need a degree and if you do have a degree, it is often in something generic. What matters is often your location as such jobs are mostly located in London, manchester, edinburgh as well as your ability to perform at interviews. Not skills at least from the onset. What matters is experience which allows you to develop the skills but you need to get your foot in the door! I just read an article about a 28 year old on £70k who basically always worked in operations for an education tech company in London, so nothing glam at all or particularly high skilled.

What is the issue isn't always the skills, but the fact that outside of London and the SE, the country is closer to Eastern Europe than a Western European country so industries which rely on domestic demand and the salaries of public servants (nhs staff and civil servants) cannot pay well. Hence why you get an executive assistant for a hedge fund earning as much as £90k which is more than many doctors or highly qualified professionals in the regions. The discrepancy in salaries and gdp per capita is not going to be solved with anti-natalist policies and it isn't up to the individual either.

Increasing wages / salaries to above inflation.. wages are low in the UK compared to other developed nations which means people are sometimes choosing, understandably, not to work because they'll lose out (e.g losing benefits if you work above a certain number of hours). Better earning power would mean people have more options with regards to housing / where to live etc.. not an simple one to fix though.

Also, schools.. there needs to be a huge re-think on how schools are run - it really is failing many children. I would love to see more options open up for kids who need a more relaxed approach to learning eg homeschool type hubs that are State-funded, or apprentice/hands on-type education from a younger age, rather than expecting ALL children to conform to a very rigid idea of what education should be. I'm not saying do away with formal learning, (it definitely suits some kids, my DS included) but it is not one size fits all, which is what this and many other governments seem to believe. Don't see this happening any time soon though.

I’d be willing to pay increased tax to be ringfenced for spending on social housing, education and health services (in particular mental health/dentistry). Ultimately though with some of these things you are taking of a one off investment vs an ongoing cost. Once you had more social housing available and you stopped selling it via right to buy then you’d have it forever and have rent coming in to use to maintain it. If the occupiers were not paying the rent then it would still surely be cheaper for government to fund maintaining property vs funding those people to rent privately.

My late Dad did it and described it much the same way, including the suicide of the ones who couldn’t take it.
As for enforcing it - we have pretty much zero enforcement of anything but the most serious crimes now, it’s fanciful to imagine we could make the feral youth comply.

National service is a good idea but should be entirely voluntary, can be done at any age from say 14 to 25 and encompass a wide range of roles which benefits society and not just the military. And they should be paid for it.

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to interrupt two years of my life and stop studying and working and certainly not for military service. Being the oldest in the school year I was already 19 when I went to university, I did a four year degree, worked FT for a couple of years, went back to university for a year FT while working PT, did two years of workplace training and finally qualified at 28.

So I think it might be a very good idea indeed, particular for those who are disenchanted with school, and particularly if it is seen as a really positive thing to do on you CV. But it has to be voluntary, people have different life paths and I'd want to add to young people's options not make them do things that I would have hated.

Huge increase in public transport and tax to hell anyone in a big 4x4.
Investing in schools so that all abilities and interests are encouraged and can be successful not just those on the road to university. Less emphasis on exams and more emphasis on actual skills.

A proper integrated high speed rail network.

Tax inheritance as income (exemptions for someone inheriting part or all of their primary residence)

I'm up for all of that! I used to work for one of the regional gas suppliers pre-privatisation. They had to get permission from the government if they wanted to increase prices above a certain threshold and if they made too big a surplus they had to pay it to the govt where it went in to the general pot. That meant they spent excess money on improving infrastructure and keeping costs down.

I also worked briefly for the "water board", which in my area was run by the council. They were also required to keep prices reasonable and were allowed to borrow cheaply from the govt when they needed to replace a treatment works and a pumping station.

It's interesting to see that so many of the suggestions on here are in favour of reinstating the arrangements that were in place in the 60s and 70s when I was a child/young adult.

the issue is that at some point under our two party system, the tories will come back into power and they will sell it off. They hate social housing and they will market it as right to buy 2.0. They are already planning this as part of their comeback (after they lose the election next year so probably in 2029). I think they did a survey on social tenants before and something like 50% of them would prefer to own (despite having lower incomes and probably less ability to pay for things like broken boilers and roofs). This percentage would probably increase if the economy improves. I guess we all want what we can't have and its easy to underestimate the costs of owning esp when home ownership is so embedded in the British psyche.

So while I support social housing, the fact that the tories would continue to be an electoral force means we need to approach it differently. Can't put all your eggs in one basket, hence why I support independently run cooperatives. If the system is more dispersed and diverse, it is more difficult to dismantle. Make it as unravellable as possible.

Also trains renationalised and fares made reasonable, maybe priced per mile.

The cost to travel by train is ludicrous in this country! I'd love to travel more in farther flung parts of the country but it's much more expensive than flying around Europe.

@fearfuloffluff

being seen as for people with addiction problems, homelessness, just out of prison etc

This is basically the definition of the way social housing is seen where I am, and everyone I have ever known to live in social housing (if you add in domestic abuse victims, single mothers, asylum seekers, disabled, benefit claimants making a career out of it)

I think that’s why I don’t like the idea of an expansion of it as it enables a lifestyle that is just not healthy and problems for surrounding neighbourhoods.

If they could turn it into a lovely beacon of community pride as you describe well that would be wonderful.

But my impression is of estates ruined by drugs and deprivation… with the odd chancer wiggling in there to make money via right to buy.

I was certain you were going to end that with “he said it reminded him of his time in national service.”

Pay per mile road taxation. And a very high tax on ultra processed food, used to reduce the price of non processed foods

I agree with having far more social housing, but I also think private rents needs to be more in line with social housing rents with much longer tenancies offered rather than just 12 months. Lots of Europe have 3 or 5 year tenancies.

As we currently have so few social houses and very long waiting lists, I'd also increase social rents with salary. Money raised could then be used to build/buy more social housing. e.g. A friend of mine has a joint family income of £80k and pay such a tiny amount for their 2 bed social house and just one child. And yet another friend is paying over double that for private rental and yet they earn only £35k between them and struggle to afford to run a car.

I'd also make parents take more responsibility for the education and behaviour of their children. I'm always shocked at how many parents are just not interested in interacting with their kids and leave all learning and discipline to the school.

Have much tougher policies about Job seekers forcing more into employment or their JS allowance is stopped. This creates swathes of jobs and fills lots of job vacancies.

As someone with some experiencing of challenging work coaches' sanction decisions regarding looking for work, and with 100% success rate in such challenges, I can assure you that the policy is not only tough enough, but is often applied in a completely unreasonable way.

@Ginmonkeyagain Inheritance tax already exists and falls to a lot more people than it would have previously as it hasn't been adjusted in line with property prices.

I think it's not perfect but reasonably fair as it is, I certainly wouldn't scrap it but I wouldn't increase it- and actually at 40% over a certain threshold it is greater than the income tax threshold for many people, though obviously the threshold before it gets paid is much greater.

Plus it would be political suicide, no party would propose it. And I don't think it would work in terms of releasing properties into the market instead of people inheriting them or bring in a lot more tax revenue as there are always way round these things.

A massive social housing building programme and therefore no housing shortage would affect the property market a lot more bring down prices and bring more people into IHT thresholds.

Make social housing a viable option for all families. Just build the things- stop making excuses and stop selling them off

By continuing to increase pension age in line with healthy lifespan, and by accepting that we’ll need to increase pay and improve conditions in health and care services to ensure a good ratio of people happy to take care of the elderly.

The Ponzi scheme of continuously increasing the population by bringing in ever-more young immigrants is a terrible alternative.

Combine NHS with social care and properly fund

Yes it seems like the lack of integration with social care is one of the biggest issues for the NHS. Inspite of comments about how we can’t keep pumping money in U.K. actually spends relatively less per capita on healthcare than Scandinavia, US, Canada, Germany & others. France & Finland spend less & by all accounts have decent systems so definitely seems like it’s worth looking at what they do differently and to what extent it could work here. It’s also unsurprising there is a need to spend more with increasing life expectancy and more elderly people.